I saw in the comments section below Maciamo's article references to a study on hair color, but all I could see were some frequency pages. There was no reference to the name of the actual study or a link to it.

I heard some years ago that the red-haired population of Britian could have been as high as 24% in pre-Roman times and that the decrease was down to the Romans thinking it was 'unlucky'. Sounds too high but it could have been alot higher than today. If 24% of people had red-hair then the gene must have been present in most of the population.

I heard some years ago that the red-haired population of Britian could have been as high as 24% in pre-Roman times and that the decrease was down to the Romans thinking it was 'unlucky'. Sounds too high but it could have been alot higher than today. If 24% of people had red-hair then the gene must have been present in most of the population.

That's a very interesting idea - It sounds plausible. Especially given that at least in recent centuries people have become much more mixed, and as a result recessive genes have likely become more rare, or at least they manifest more rarely in red hair?I suppose it would certainly give more credence to ancient accounts of red haired Celts and Germans, i mean the 5-10% or 10% plus now is a lot for someone observing from the perspective of southern Europe, but if it was as high as 24% in some areas it must have seemed almost like the defining features for those tribes, and hence partly why it was commented upon so readily.

I guess family groups might come into account too - If you were observing a few families with a tendency for red hair above the average, that would also be pretty striking, and the number of redheads might of course appear to be far above the actual average.@rms2: Yeah, the correlation with L21 is quite striking indeed. It definitely seems to be an R1b thing in any case - It seems to be primarily a Northern Western European thing (With exception of course as obviously shown on the map), which is pretty much what R1b-L21 seems to be.

I heard some years ago that the red-haired population of Britian could have been as high as 24% in pre-Roman times and that the decrease was down to the Romans thinking it was 'unlucky'. Sounds too high but it could have been alot higher than today. If 24% of people had red-hair then the gene must have been present in most of the population.

Note: Empty space removed by moderator. Content unaltered. - rms2

Well a large percentage of the Iirish ,Welsh and Scotish population carry the gene today so it is certainly plausable that in the pre roman period that a lot more people carried that gene!

I heard some years ago that the red-haired population of Britian could have been as high as 24% in pre-Roman times and that the decrease was down to the Romans thinking it was 'unlucky'. Sounds too high but it could have been alot higher than today. If 24% of people had red-hair then the gene must have been present in most of the population.

That's a very interesting idea - It sounds plausible. Especially given that at least in recent centuries people have become much more mixed, and as a result recessive genes have likely become more rare, or at least they manifest more rarely in red hair?I suppose it would certainly give more credence to ancient accounts of red haired Celts and Germans, i mean the 5-10% or 10% plus now is a lot for someone observing from the perspective of southern Europe, but if it was as high as 24% in some areas it must have seemed almost like the defining features for those tribes, and hence partly why it was commented upon so readily.

I guess family groups might come into account too - If you were observing a few families with a tendency for red hair above the average, that would also be pretty striking, and the number of redheads might of course appear to be far above the actual average.@rms2: Yeah, the correlation with L21 is quite striking indeed. It definitely seems to be an R1b thing in any case - It seems to be primarily a Northern Western European thing (With exception of course as obviously shown on the map), which is pretty much what R1b-L21 seems to be.

Anyone can have red hair. The trait is autosomal and thus independent of y-dna or mtDNA.

It is interesting that some of the places with the highest frequency of red hair also have a high frequency of L21, but there is no way really to prove a connection between the two. For one thing, every RHC (Red Hair Color) variant is recessive, meaning you have to inherit it from both your mom and your dad in order to have red hair.

I heard some years ago that the red-haired population of Britian could have been as high as 24% in pre-Roman times and that the decrease was down to the Romans thinking it was 'unlucky'. Sounds too high but it could have been alot higher than today. If 24% of people had red-hair then the gene must have been present in most of the population.

That's a very interesting idea - It sounds plausible. Especially given that at least in recent centuries people have become much more mixed, and as a result recessive genes have likely become more rare, or at least they manifest more rarely in red hair?I suppose it would certainly give more credence to ancient accounts of red haired Celts and Germans, i mean the 5-10% or 10% plus now is a lot for someone observing from the perspective of southern Europe, but if it was as high as 24% in some areas it must have seemed almost like the defining features for those tribes, and hence partly why it was commented upon so readily.

I guess family groups might come into account too - If you were observing a few families with a tendency for red hair above the average, that would also be pretty striking, and the number of redheads might of course appear to be far above the actual average.@rms2: Yeah, the correlation with L21 is quite striking indeed. It definitely seems to be an R1b thing in any case - It seems to be primarily a Northern Western European thing (With exception of course as obviously shown on the map), which is pretty much what R1b-L21 seems to be.

Interesting stuff.

Nope, actually it's quite interesting on that map that both the Netherlands and a small part of Denmark have slightly high frequencies - If we include Britain and Ireland too there is probably a correlation with R1b-U106 as well, although it seems much weaker. L21 just fits it very well.

I saw in the comments section below Maciamo's article references to a study on hair color, but all I could see were some frequency pages. There was no reference to the name of the actual study or a link to it.

Anyone know which study Maciamo based this map on?

I dont know the origin of the map but it is the best one I have ever seen for corresponding with other studies and also personal observation. The isles distrubtion is incredibly Celtic. In Ireland the peak is almost identical of 'the great Irishry' of Ulster and north Connaught where the Gaelic Irish remained independent of Norman/English control and settlement the longest.

I think that map kind of demonstrates its the most far flung margins of northern Europe that have more red hair and this cuts right across the Celtic-Germanic divide and almost certainly pre-dates such a division. I am fairly convinced its a Mesolithic trait although clealry some of these areas also supplied later movements. Elevated red hair actually to some extent coincides with the areas where farming arrived after 4200BC (i.e. late).

I saw in the comments section below Maciamo's article references to a study on hair color, but all I could see were some frequency pages. There was no reference to the name of the actual study or a link to it.

Anyone know which study Maciamo based this map on?

I dont know the origin of the map but it is the best one I have ever seen for corresponding with other studies and also personal observation. The isles distrubtion is incredibly Celtic. In Ireland the peak is almost identical of 'the great Irishry' of Ulster and north Connaught where the Gaelic Irish remained independent of Norman/English control and settlement the longest.

I think that map kind of demonstrates its the most far flung margins of northern Europe that have more red hair and this cuts right across the Celtic-Germanic divide and almost certainly pre-dates such a division. I am fairly convinced its a Mesolithic trait although clealry some of these areas also supplied later movements. Elevated red hair actually to some extent coincides with the areas where farming arrived after 4200BC (i.e. late).

Those are some interesting observations. I suppose if it is a Mesolithic trait as you suppose we should be looking at (in terms of Y-DNA) the population absorbed by the R1b/R1b-L21 lot? So maybe some forms of I?

No but I once read that red hair among Swedes was found to often be a different marker from that in the west.

Actually, SNPedia says this about rs1805008 (aka Arg160Trp or R160W):

Quote

rs1805008, known as Arg160Trp or R160W; associated with red hair in an Irish population [PMID 9665397]

Rs1805008 is one of the SNPs tested by FTDNA's Family Finder. I have a "TC" there, which means I carry the red hair variant there but in a recessive state. The T is the nucleotide that imparts red hair, but you have to have two copies of it. Since I only have one T there, I don't have red hair myself, but I can pass it down. My youngest daughter has red hair.

I heard some years ago that the red-haired population of Britian could have been as high as 24% in pre-Roman times and that the decrease was down to the Romans thinking it was 'unlucky'. Sounds too high but it could have been alot higher than today. If 24% of people had red-hair then the gene must have been present in most of the population.

Note: Empty space removed by moderator. Content unaltered. - rms2

We can only really speculate as to the hair colour in pre-Roman times. Nobody recorded such information so I would like to know how they arrived at 24%?

My own view is that the Celts of Britain were a predominantly brunet haired people and that red hair was a substantial minority.

It is a nice map but I would like to know the source used to to create it? Which hair colour studies were used?

It doesn't surprise me to see elavated levels of red hair in Brittany and Belgium/Holland as I have met quite a few red heads from the Low Countries.

However, the map is misleading with respect to red hair in Wales as it doesn't recognise regional differences within Wales. I have said it before but I am only aware of two people who have conducted surveys of hair colour in Wales - Beddoe in 19C and Fleure/Davies/James in the 20C.

Fleure in the 1910s and 1930s observed that overall Wales had 6.2% red hair, although he did exclude industrial SE Wales for obvious reasons. Beddoe observed higher red hair levels in Abergavenney (women) 10%, Taff Vale (women) 9% and Carmarthen 7.6%. All of these places are in South Wales which means that red hair is more common in South Wales than in the north.

Anglesey was 7% red hair but the rest of North Wales was between 3-6%. My ancestral homeland of Gwynedd has the lowest recorded levels of red hair in Wales at 3-4.4% according to Fleure/Davies.

Some of his quotes support what I have said about the Welsh in another thread. "Welsh Uniqueness."

Quote

Prof Donnelly said: "People from Wales are genetically relatively distinct, they look different genetically from much of the rest of mainland Britain, and actually people in north Wales look relatively distinct from people in south Wales."

Quote

He said people from south and north Wales genetically have "fairly large similarities with the ancestry of people from Ireland on the one hand and France on the other, which we think is most likely to be a combination of remnants of very ancient populations who moved across into Britain after the last Ice Age.

"And potentially also, people travelling up the Atlantic coast of France and Spain and settling in Wales many thousands of years ago".

Not sure I agree with the ice age stuff but the links to Ireland and Atlantic France make sense to me.

It looks like he's suggesting the North Welsh are closer to the Irish but the South Welsh closer to France (maybe Brittany?).

Quote

"In north Wales, there has been relative isolation because people moved less because of geographical barriers," Prof Donnelly said

Exactly what I said. I think the POBI project with its autosomal DNA could be quite revealing as I believe there is far too much focus on Y-DNA on this forum. Y-DNA only tells part of the story and even then there are so many difficulties in using modern Y-DNA to infer ancient movements of people.

Some of his quotes support what I have said about the Welsh in another thread. "Welsh Uniqueness."

Quote

Prof Donnelly said: "People from Wales are genetically relatively distinct, they look different genetically from much of the rest of mainland Britain, and actually people in north Wales look relatively distinct from people in south Wales."

Quote

He said people from south and north Wales genetically have "fairly large similarities with the ancestry of people from Ireland on the one hand and France on the other, which we think is most likely to be a combination of remnants of very ancient populations who moved across into Britain after the last Ice Age.

"And potentially also, people travelling up the Atlantic coast of France and Spain and settling in Wales many thousands of years ago".

Not sure I agree with the ice age stuff but the links to Ireland and Atlantic France make sense to me.

It looks like he's suggesting the North Welsh are closer to the Irish but the South Welsh closer to France (maybe Brittany?).

Quote

"In north Wales, there has been relative isolation because people moved less because of geographical barriers," Prof Donnelly said

Exactly what I said. I think the POBI project with its autosomal DNA could be quite revealing as I believe there is far too much focus on Y-DNA on this forum. Y-DNA only tells part of the story and even then there are so many difficulties in using modern Y-DNA to infer ancient movements of people.

Thanks for the link and information. Yeah i'm really looking forward to more from the POBI project. I agree that y-DNA is focused on too much, Autosomal genetics seems to give a much better view of how populations relate to each other, although i think y-DNA is important for time-scales. I suppose with Autosomal genetics you can tell that groups A & B are similar or dissimilar, but y-DNA might give you clues as to why and when. So i think the POBI's approach of using them in conjunction is excellent.

Some of his quotes support what I have said about the Welsh in another thread. "Welsh Uniqueness."

Quote

Prof Donnelly said: "People from Wales are genetically relatively distinct, they look different genetically from much of the rest of mainland Britain, and actually people in north Wales look relatively distinct from people in south Wales."

Quote

He said people from south and north Wales genetically have "fairly large similarities with the ancestry of people from Ireland on the one hand and France on the other, which we think is most likely to be a combination of remnants of very ancient populations who moved across into Britain after the last Ice Age.

"And potentially also, people travelling up the Atlantic coast of France and Spain and settling in Wales many thousands of years ago".

Not sure I agree with the ice age stuff but the links to Ireland and Atlantic France make sense to me.

It looks like he's suggesting the North Welsh are closer to the Irish but the South Welsh closer to France (maybe Brittany?).

Quote

"In north Wales, there has been relative isolation because people moved less because of geographical barriers," Prof Donnelly said

Exactly what I said. I think the POBI project with its autosomal DNA could be quite revealing as I believe there is far too much focus on Y-DNA on this forum. Y-DNA only tells part of the story and even then there are so many difficulties in using modern Y-DNA to infer ancient movements of people.

Thanks for the link and information. Yeah i'm really looking forward to more from the POBI project. I agree that y-DNA is focused on too much, Autosomal genetics seems to give a much better view of how populations relate to each other, although i think y-DNA is important for time-scales. I suppose with Autosomal genetics you can tell that groups A & B are similar or dissimilar, but y-DNA might give you clues as to why and when. So i think the POBI's approach of using them in conjunction is excellent.

The problem with Y-DNA is that even the experts can't agree on time scales. Stephen Oppenheimer was once an "expert" and he said R1b had been in Britain for 12,000 years but in recent years other experts and hobbyists on the internet have said R1b is much younger but even they can't agree on precise dates.

Five years from now the experts will probably be saying something completely different.

Some of his quotes support what I have said about the Welsh in another thread. "Welsh Uniqueness."

Quote

Prof Donnelly said: "People from Wales are genetically relatively distinct, they look different genetically from much of the rest of mainland Britain, and actually people in north Wales look relatively distinct from people in south Wales."

Quote

He said people from south and north Wales genetically have "fairly large similarities with the ancestry of people from Ireland on the one hand and France on the other, which we think is most likely to be a combination of remnants of very ancient populations who moved across into Britain after the last Ice Age.

"And potentially also, people travelling up the Atlantic coast of France and Spain and settling in Wales many thousands of years ago".

Not sure I agree with the ice age stuff but the links to Ireland and Atlantic France make sense to me.

It looks like he's suggesting the North Welsh are closer to the Irish but the South Welsh closer to France (maybe Brittany?).

Quote

"In north Wales, there has been relative isolation because people moved less because of geographical barriers," Prof Donnelly said

Exactly what I said. I think the POBI project with its autosomal DNA could be quite revealing as I believe there is far too much focus on Y-DNA on this forum. Y-DNA only tells part of the story and even then there are so many difficulties in using modern Y-DNA to infer ancient movements of people.

Thanks for the link and information. Yeah i'm really looking forward to more from the POBI project. I agree that y-DNA is focused on too much, Autosomal genetics seems to give a much better view of how populations relate to each other, although i think y-DNA is important for time-scales. I suppose with Autosomal genetics you can tell that groups A & B are similar or dissimilar, but y-DNA might give you clues as to why and when. So i think the POBI's approach of using them in conjunction is excellent.

The problem with Y-DNA is that even the experts can't agree on time scales. Stephen Oppenheimer was once an "expert" and he said R1b had been in Britain for 12,000 years but in recent years other experts and hobbyists on the internet have said R1b is much younger but even they can't agree on precise dates.

Five years from now the experts will probably be saying something completely different.

That is true, but at least it gives people the potential to accurately date things from a genetic point of view - Even if we are wrong at the moment, it's likely that someone will come close to the correct answer at some point soon. But a lot of the age calculations going on in this forum are very interesting. I admit i don't know very much at all about the technical side of it but it seems that it is well based.

The problem with Y-DNA is that even the experts can't agree on time scales. Stephen Oppenheimer was once an "expert" and he said R1b had been in Britain for 12,000 years but in recent years other experts and hobbyists on the internet have said R1b is much younger but even they can't agree on precise dates.

Five years from now the experts will probably be saying something completely different.

I'm not sure who considered who an expert but I only considered Stephen Oppenheimer an author with a paediatrician background. A better example of an expert with a different point of view might be Spencer Wells who is a true population geneticist. I suspect though that he has always left enough vagueness in his conclusions that he can adjust. It'll be interesting to see if he alters his perspective on R1b after seeing results from Geno 2.0 testing.

Regardless, there may always be some disagreement. Others have noted on this forum that old scientific hypotheses that are wrong oftentimes don't die until their originators die. All the disagreement doesn't mean someone doesn't already have it right. Precision is a relative term but I wouldn't expect too much precision out of genetic time calculations based on average mutation rates.

It is a nice map but I would like to know the source used to to create it? Which hair colour studies were used?

. . .

Those are excellent questions. I asked the same thing several posts back (at the top of the page, as a matter of fact).

I would like to see the study or studies myself.

I would be curious to see which MC1R RHC variants are at work in the various regions to produce red hair. Apparently red hair in one place can be the product of a different RHC variant from that which produces red hair in another place. It would also be interesting to see which variants are prevalent in which parts of the British Isles or, if there is a mix, what the relative proportions are.

It is a nice map but I would like to know the source used to to create it? Which hair colour studies were used?

. . .

Those are excellent questions. I asked the same thing several posts back (at the top of the page, as a matter of fact).

I would like to see the study or studies myself.

I would be curious to see which MC1R RHC variants are at work in the various regions to produce red hair. Apparently red hair in one place can be the product of a different RHC variant from that which produces red hair in another place. It would also be interesting to see which variants are prevalent in which parts of the British Isles or, if there is a mix, what the relative proportions are.

Yes, it would be useful to have more genetic studies on this topic. We should also remember that red hair comes in a variety of shades - you can have a light, strawberry blond red as well as a darker, brownier red hair.

Red hair does seem to be a trait particularly associated with the fringes of NW Europe and as alantrowel has said it could well have been hovering around there since the mesolithic.

The problem with Y-DNA is that even the experts can't agree on time scales. Stephen Oppenheimer was once an "expert" and he said R1b had been in Britain for 12,000 years but in recent years other experts and hobbyists on the internet have said R1b is much younger but even they can't agree on precise dates.

Five years from now the experts will probably be saying something completely different.

I'm not sure who considered who an expert but I only considered Stephen Oppenheimer an author with a paediatrician background. A better example of an expert with a different point of view might be Spencer Wells who is a true population geneticist. I suspect though that he has always left enough vagueness in his conclusions that he can adjust. It'll be interesting to see if he alters his perspective on R1b after seeing results from Geno 2.0 testing.

Regardless, there may always be some disagreement. Others have noted on this forum that old scientific hypotheses that are wrong oftentimes don't die until their originators die. All the disagreement doesn't mean someone doesn't already have it right. Precision is a relative term but I wouldn't expect too much precision out of genetic time calculations based on average mutation rates.

As I see it population genetics is still quite a young science and I think there is a way to go before we get conclusive answers about the precise origins of different people. History and archaeology have been studied for a long time so we should give them some credence too. I understand that Oppenheimer was criticised for his use of mutation rates and too few STR markers.

I'm still trying to get my head round mutation rates, which seem key to the whole question. It all looks very complicated - some STR markers mutate at different rates, you have back mutations and then two step mutations. And all this is based on genealogical surname projects where STR mutations can be observed over a family pedigree back to a known common ancestor.

I must find out what "evolutionary" mutation rates are and also how many STR markers are there on the Y-chromosome. Are we only testing a small proportion of the entire Y chromosome?

I'm still trying to get my head round mutation rates, which seem key to the whole question. It all looks very complicated - some STR markers mutate at different rates, you have back mutations and then two step mutations. And all this is based on genealogical surname projects where STR mutations can be observed over a family pedigree back to a known common ancestor.

I must find out what "evolutionary" mutation rates are and also how many STR markers are there on the Y-chromosome. Are we only testing a small proportion of the entire Y chromosome?